Consensus on Global Warming?Follow

You know she would.

Maybe. I can see someone asking for a cite ("Really? Where'd you read that?"), but not a specific link.

While I wouldn't be surprised if Deval Patrick was appointed to some major post since they really seem to have alot politically in common and have a strong alliance, I would be disappointed if he left his post as governor of Massachusetts. While I know it was a joke, I think there has been alot of bantering and I'm not in the mood to lose another governor who is more distracted by national politics. He's improved alot since he initially pissed off everyone.

While I know it was a joke, I think there has been alot of bantering and I'm not in the mood to lose another governor who is more distracted by national politics. He's improved alot since he initially pissed off everyone.

It's better for you and me if he does. He's going to get killed in 2010, and his people know it. If there's any sort of real offer, he's gone.

Edited, May 22nd 2008 11:59am by Smasharoo

I find the political system here very frustrating sometimes. And I hate myself for missing William Weld.

Well, I was joking that Flea would. If we were eating, I doubt I'd go and e-mail you later to back up what we talked about over dinner.

Exactly. It'd be pretty odd for me to ask, right?


If we were involved in a discussion online, I might do it but then again, I'm usually a pretty link-happy individual.

Sure.

The point being you'd make obvious distinctions between the two social situations.

I was. I'm two years older than you and started college in 1989. That's pretty cool.How did you set up that? How is your family connected to the Mass. political system? I've read William Weld's books and like him in general, both in interviews and as a politician, which isn't common for me since he's a republican. But I guess we all know that one of the only reasons republicans ever got elected is b/c people wish that Weld was still governor.

Edited, May 22nd 2008 12:12pm by Annabella

James Micheal Curly is my father's father's cousin. Whatever that makes me to him.

First cousin twice removed.

Edited for, you know, correct information.



Edited, May 22nd 2008 12:38pm by Samira

I missed a father, actually. My great-grandfather's cousin.

First cousin thrice removed. After that I'm out of "ices".

ETA: the rule is, "removed" refers to generational differences, while the "first cousin, second cousin..." refers to the commonality of ancestry.

You and your cousin share a pair of grandparents. You and your second cousin share a pair of great-grandparents, and so on.

Your father's cousin is your cousin once removed.


Edited, May 22nd 2008 12:45pm by Samira

Slap your name on that sucker now and who knows?

Joph linked the same article many moons ago as well. Of course, "75% of the papers" is not the same as "75% of climatologists agree". It just means that most of those who submitted papers to the ISA fell into that category.


Um... It also would help to read the footnote (#9 IIRC). Basically, if a paper wasn't "about climate change" it wasn't included as part of that section. Um... Makes one wonder what criteria they used to decide if a paper was "about climate change" and therefore included under that ISA category.

You also have to realize that depending on who's terms you're using, the phrase "climate change" can have different meanings, and this in turn can lead to some seriously misrepresentation of the "facts". This is one of the reasons why many of Joph's external articles are IMO not meaning what Joph thinks they mean.

The FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change) defines climate change as: "a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity, that alters the composition of the global atmosphere, and that is in addition to natural climate variability over comparable time periods."

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) defines climate change as: "any change in climate over time whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity."


How this can be misleading is that the IPCC does not actually do their own research. They use papers written by others to make political recommendations. I hope we can all see the problems that occur if the IPCC is using papers written about climate that use the FCCC's definition of climate change to support positions and recommendations that use their own. So, if they find 100% of the papers written about climate change conclude that it's occurring as a result of human activity, their use of the phrase "climate change" makes it appear as though this means that all the science says that the climate is changing as a result of human activity. But the source papers are *only* those that specifically talk about human impact on climate, so they've produced an incredibly misleading pseudo conclusion by only looking only at fact that support their own positions.


Similarly, when Joph cites papers and studies talking about climate change being caused by human activity, but none saying it's happening as a result of natural activity, it's equally irrelevant. Um... By definition all papers talking about "climate change" are only talking about changes due to human activity. It should not be surprising at all to not find any citing natural causes...


Yeah. Semantics. I know...

Yes. But the categorization of those papers is going to (presumably) be based on the scientific definition of "climate change", right?

Assuming they use the FCCC's definition (which by my understanding is the "standard"), then it should not be surprising at all to find that none of the ISI's articles filed under "climate change" include papers claiming a non-human cause.


Hence, the article's statement to that effect is misleading and irrelevant, isn't it?

Hence, the article's statement to that effect is misleading and irrelevant, isn't it?

Nope. Do you see why?